One might imagine that direct methods [radiometric dating] of measuring time would make obsolete all of the previous means of estimating age, but these new “absolute” measurements are used more as a supplement to traditional methods [index fossils] than as a substitute. Geologists put more faith in the principles of superposition [strata are younger upwards] and faunal succession [evolution] than they do in numbers that come out of a machine. If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, “good” dates are those that agree with the field data [fossils, superposition, etc.]

“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists—the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data. Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: ‘If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?’ The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!”

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results."

[The Darwinian] revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.

‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions.’

Being convinced about the uniformity of radioactive decay rates, I became just as convinced I had new truth about Earth's ancient history and the evolutionary development of life thereon. Thus I went forth to utilize the pseudoscience approach described above to convince whatever common man I might encounter that he was badly deceived if he accepted the literal reading of Genesis. Years later, I woke up to the fact that I had been badly deceived, and that in turn I had been badly hoodwinking others by conveying the impression I had the facts proving evolution.

This I had accomplished by learning to speak a language unknown to the common man. Such had no way to defend themselves because they couldn't speak the language; they didn't know enough to even inquire about the assumptions I was using. Indeed, I hardly understood them myself. Later I would realize this is exactly how evolutionists have gained control of the masses, and this is exactly the way they have managed to undermine and destroy the faith of Christians in the Bible. For me troubles began after I began to probe the decay rate assumption. I soon learned just how deeply it had become embedded in the psyche of modern physics — how it had become one of the predominant icons of modern physics, one that was not to be challenged. Physicists are trained to think objectively and diligently inquire — in theory, that is. But I soon learned there was a stringent, unwritten limit as to just how far this thinking and inquiring was supposed to go.

As I began studies on the question of the uniformity of radioactive decay I learned how strongly physicists in high positions can react against research that threatens to reveal the fallacies of this assumption. I experienced the fear that investigation of this topic engenders in the highest echelons of the physics community.

*****************

Michael Balter

"[T]he amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere varies with the sun’s solar activity and fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field. This means that the radiocarbon clock can race ahead or seemingly stop for up to 5 centuries. As a result, raw radiocarbon dates sometimes diverge from real calendar years by hundreds or even thousands of years. Thus researchers must calibrate the clock to account for these fluctuations, and that can be a challenge."